[Vision2020] Jus' When You Thought Things Couln't Get More Stupid . . .

[Wayne Price]

Tom,

I agree with the two statements you made.  However in your "bonus  
round' you started talking about a "newly availed freedom", and there  
I have to disagree with you, that freedom has been with us
since December 15th, 1791, hardly "newly availed".

Also in light of the  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and  
McDonald v. Chicago (2010), I have a feeling from reading them that  
the Supreme Court will eventually
agree that in state owned housing, you can't require a citizen to give  
up a fundamental Constitutional right just to live there. See my  
comment on waiving your fundamental
Constitutional right to search and seizure just to live in state owned  
housing.


Wayne




On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:

> Two things, Mr. Price -
>
> 1)  The South Hill Vista apartments are, in fact, state-owned housing.
>
> 2)  If residents of these state-owned dwellings are permitted to store
> firearms and ammunition within these state-owned dwellings, there is
> nothing to prevent residents of state-owned dorms (including those  
> dorm
> residents who habitually consume such copious amounts of alcohol as to
> fall out of second-floor windows) from possessing and storing  
> firearms and
> ammunition within their dorm rooms.
>
> And for the bonus round, might I add that the first fatality resulting
> from this newly availed freedom may, subsequently, place the state  
> (along
> with the State Board of Education and UI President Duane Nellis) in  
> court
> once again . . . as defendents in a wrongful death lawsuit.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, January 24, 2011 7:11 pm, Wayne Price wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> If we can agree that South Hill Vista, in one way or the other is in
>> fact state housing, then I can't see how a rule waiving a fundamental
>> Constitutional Right in order to live in that state housing will be  
>> held
>> by the court(s) to pass Constitutional review.
>>
>> I worded it above specifically to look at the issue of waiving a
>> fundamental Constitutional right to take out all the possible animus
>> of what can be a "hot button" topic, and strictly look at it as a
>> Constitutional issue. For example, can the University of Idaho, as a
>> "state" entity require people to waive the right of search and  
>> seizure
>> in a state owned residence?  IF the answer is yes, that would mean a
>> law enforcement agency to enter University housing, in this case  
>> South
>> Hill Vista, would NOT need a search warrant. Can we live with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110124/f476907f/attachment-0001.html